<p>The Supreme Court has rejected a plea by Mangaluru doctor and CEO of a global health organisation to use its extraordinary power under the Constitution to dissolve his marriage with a permanent resident of Canada, who lived with him just for 40 days, saying it takes time to settle down.</p>.<p>"We do not find this to be a fit case for exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution as good sense may prevail on the parties. They had lived together only for 40 days. It takes time to settle down in marriage," a bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal Aravind Kumar said.</p>.<p>The court didn't agree to the husband's plea that there is an irretrievable breakdown of marriage.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/sc-junks-plea-for-uniform-age-of-marriage-for-men-women-1193142.html" target="_blank">SC junks plea for uniform age of marriage for men & women</a></strong></p>.<p>Notably, the top court also dismissed a plea by the wife to transfer the divorce proceedings filed by her husband from Mangaluru to a court in Mumbai. It also declined to issue any order to pay the wife travelling expenses to Mangalore from Mumbai, while granting her liberty to file such a plea before the family court.</p>.<p>"In our view no case is made out for transfer of the petition from Mangaluru, Karnataka to Mumbai, Maharashtra," the bench said. </p>.<p>The court also pointed out number of Transfer Petitions are filed in matrimonial cases, primarily by the wives seeking transfer of the matrimonial proceedings initiated by the husband. </p>.<p>"This court normally has been accepting the prayer made while showing leniency towards ladies. In Anindita Das vs Srijit Das (2006), this Court observed that may be this leniency was being misused by women. Hence, each and every case has to be considered on its own merits," the bench said.</p>.<p>The court pointed out the wife is a permanent resident of Canada. She must be travelling abroad regularly. </p>.<p>It also noted during the mediation proceedings conducted by Justice S J Vazifdar, the wife was in Canada and attended the proceedings online. </p>.<p>"There is no child born out of wedlock to be taken care of. Both the parties are well educated and engaged in their own jobs and professions. She can travel to Mangaluru to attend the hearing of the case and can also seek exemption from appearance whenever required," it said. </p>.<p>The parties, in the instant case, met on Facebook in the month of December, 2019 and they got married on December 05, 2020 as per Christian rites and customs at a Mangaluru Church. </p>.<p>After the marriage, the couple lived together for 40 days. The woman went back to Mumbai and joined a private bank. The man filed the divorce proceedings alleging she turned abusive after a few days while the woman on the contrary claimed she was ill-treated and humiliated at the matrimonial home.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court has rejected a plea by Mangaluru doctor and CEO of a global health organisation to use its extraordinary power under the Constitution to dissolve his marriage with a permanent resident of Canada, who lived with him just for 40 days, saying it takes time to settle down.</p>.<p>"We do not find this to be a fit case for exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution as good sense may prevail on the parties. They had lived together only for 40 days. It takes time to settle down in marriage," a bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal Aravind Kumar said.</p>.<p>The court didn't agree to the husband's plea that there is an irretrievable breakdown of marriage.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/sc-junks-plea-for-uniform-age-of-marriage-for-men-women-1193142.html" target="_blank">SC junks plea for uniform age of marriage for men & women</a></strong></p>.<p>Notably, the top court also dismissed a plea by the wife to transfer the divorce proceedings filed by her husband from Mangaluru to a court in Mumbai. It also declined to issue any order to pay the wife travelling expenses to Mangalore from Mumbai, while granting her liberty to file such a plea before the family court.</p>.<p>"In our view no case is made out for transfer of the petition from Mangaluru, Karnataka to Mumbai, Maharashtra," the bench said. </p>.<p>The court also pointed out number of Transfer Petitions are filed in matrimonial cases, primarily by the wives seeking transfer of the matrimonial proceedings initiated by the husband. </p>.<p>"This court normally has been accepting the prayer made while showing leniency towards ladies. In Anindita Das vs Srijit Das (2006), this Court observed that may be this leniency was being misused by women. Hence, each and every case has to be considered on its own merits," the bench said.</p>.<p>The court pointed out the wife is a permanent resident of Canada. She must be travelling abroad regularly. </p>.<p>It also noted during the mediation proceedings conducted by Justice S J Vazifdar, the wife was in Canada and attended the proceedings online. </p>.<p>"There is no child born out of wedlock to be taken care of. Both the parties are well educated and engaged in their own jobs and professions. She can travel to Mangaluru to attend the hearing of the case and can also seek exemption from appearance whenever required," it said. </p>.<p>The parties, in the instant case, met on Facebook in the month of December, 2019 and they got married on December 05, 2020 as per Christian rites and customs at a Mangaluru Church. </p>.<p>After the marriage, the couple lived together for 40 days. The woman went back to Mumbai and joined a private bank. The man filed the divorce proceedings alleging she turned abusive after a few days while the woman on the contrary claimed she was ill-treated and humiliated at the matrimonial home.</p>
